Friday, September 21, 2012

Progress of a sort

 Updated below

Bill Henderson notes on the Legal  Whiteboard that NALP listed 2,856 class of 2011 grads getting jobs with firms of more than 500 lawyers, which is a 40% drop since 2007, when 4,745 grads got such jobs.  (h/t Taxprof).  Expanding on this a bit:

(1)  The real drop is actually larger, since Columbia law grads weren't part of the 2007 numbers, which would add a couple of hundred grads to those years figures. In addition some of the 2011 jobs (but probably almost none of the 2007 positions) include back office staff attorney jobs as opposed to partner-track associate positions.

(2) If we expand the analysis to graduates who got jobs with firms of more than 100 lawyers, the percentage decline is even bigger.  8248 grads, or 19.8% of grads whose employment status was reported to NALP, got such jobs in 2007.  The figure for 2011 is 4757, or 11.1% of the class.

(3) Real median salaries for starting big law associates who are still getting the "going rate" of $160K are down 10% over the past five years. This doesn't count bonuses, which would make the drop larger.  And again this doesn't include the drastic drop at the bottom of the salary curve for big law lawyers, since some unknown but non-trivial percentage of the class of 2011 got jobs with big firms that paid $50K to $75K rather than six figures.  Meanwhile the median salary for all associates at megafirms has dropped to $145K.

(4) Private law school tuition increased by 73% from 2000 to 2010 and public resident tuition increased by 150%.

So law schools altered their cost structures in a way that would only have made sense if an increasing percentage of their graduates were getting big law jobs, over a period of time when, at the national level, the number of graduates getting such jobs actually declined by nearly 50%.  To put it another way, a cost structure that didn't make any sense at many law schools in 2000 became one that didn't make any sense at almost all law schools by 2012.

On a cheerier note, it appears that economic reality is slowly trickling into the consciousness of prospective law students.  Here are some enrollment numbers for the class of 2015, curated by TLS posters:

Wake Forest 127 (-58)
Vanderbilt 173 (-20)
U. Minnesota 220 (-25)
UC Davis 191 (-1)
Hamline 134 (-66)
St. Thomas 150 (no change)
William Mitchell 250 (-59)
Arizona St. 250 (+79)  Updated: Actual figure is 152, -19)
U. Arizona 125 (-33)
U. Texas 300 (-75)
UC Hastings 320 (-80)
Penn State 170 (-50)
WUSTL 203 (-39)
UGA 189 (-36)
George Mason 147 (-39)
George Washington 400 (-74)
Valapraiso 163 (-55)
Notre Dame 178 (-5)
William & Mary 196 (-21)
NYU 453 (+3)
Seattle University 292 (-30)
Case Western 160 (-35)
Cooley law school reportedly down several hundred
UVA 358 (+1)
U. Kansas 141 (0)
Indiana 202(-38)
U. Alabama 155 (-10)
USC 188  (-11)
Nebraska 136 (+8)
University of Houston 216 (-48)
Loyola Chicago 283 (+9)
BU 211 (-31)
CU 153 (-11)
Yale 203 (-2)
SUNY Buffalo 205 (+30)
Wayne state 148 (-33)
Michigan St. 298 (-9)
U. Michigan 345 (-14)
Rutgers-Newark 226 (+2)
Columbia: 368 (-29)
Charleston 176 (-48)
UCONN  151  (-30)
Albany 202 (-33)
Oregon  147 (-36)
Gonzaga  132 (-44) 

So the word is getting out, and progress is happening.

Update:   Some more numbers from TLS:

Florida State:  187 (-13)
Barry    296 (+29)
Stetson 300 (-44)
Oklahoma City 177 (-24)
Santa Clara 243  (-44)
St. John's 265 (-28)
Hofstra 325  (-51)
Hawaii  86  (-30)
Seton Hall 206 (-60; 23% smaller class and median LSAT fell)
New England Law 452  (+67)


103 comments:

  1. 2,856/45,000 = about 6%

    WTF? When you consider that the graduates from higher-tiered schools are getting most these jobs....it stands to reason that these numbers are FAR crappier at any school outside the top 5.

    Can't wait for the LSIC (Law School Industrial Complex) to spin this one. The LSIC make me sick.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the law school syndicate will be broken by getting the word out to prospectives about the true value proposition of a JD. No point in trying to get the law schools to reform themselves, that will not happen, and at least half of them should be shuttered anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have it on good authority that Case came in at 154, not 160, which is a decline of 38 from last year's entering class of 192.

    Also, Ohio State came in at 173 this year, which is a decline of 39 from the fall 2011 entering class size of 212.

    A couple of law schools in my region were right around or just below 100 students in this year's entering class. One claims to have a part-time evening program, but they only brought in 25 new part-time evening students this fall. How is this sustainable? Some of these schools will have to close if this keeps up.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The school I'm at is on this list in one of the higher amounts, and it took a double whammy of having a significant lower amount than last year's class, a sort of insignificant amount of people dropping out, and a significant amount of people transferring out (and not transferring in).

    ReplyDelete
  5. The for profit law schools such as Charlotte school of law are enrolling record amounts. Something is very suspicious here, this is very odd. Can we get the feds to look into this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're an idiot. The feds are behind it.

      Delete
    2. http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=190807&start=575

      Mentions Charlotte down 34% from 224 to 147. I'm not sure how they are doing this and maintaining profitability (maybe tuition increases and giving out less scholly $?).

      Delete
    3. http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=190807&start=575

      Mentions Charlotte down 34% from 224 to 147. I'm not sure how they are doing this and maintaining profitability (maybe tuition increases and giving out less scholly $?).

      Delete
  6. Not only is enrollment down, but anecdotal evidence from TLS would indicate that tuition discounts were up, both in terms of size and frequency. This isn't directly captured in the enrollment figures, so the negative pressure on LS economics probably is even greater than what the enrollment data indicates. For instance, there were some cases of splitters receiving decent discount offers from schools that, even a cycle or two ago, normally would demand (and get) full price from applicants with similar numbers.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Just want to note that I think the Arizona State figure is much lower. I believe it is 152, which would be 19 fewer this year.

    All of the schools above suggest a pace of about 20 fewer students per school, so that would be about 4,000 fewer 1Ls this term. However the number could go up once we get figures for T3/T4 schools - Cooley, Phoenix, Charlotte, Fla. Coastal, et. al.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Seems like reality is putting a hamper on the degree mill known as "GW".

    PRESTIGE!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Huey Lewis nailed it: the law school pigs and cockroaches will not move for any meaningful reform. It can only come from the outside. Thanks to several blogs, mainstream news articles and a few professors, the message is reaching prospective students.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The next wave of spin is going to be "APPLY NOW to take advantage of low low low competition! This offer won't last! Soon the economy will be back to normal and you'll have missed out on this once in a lifetime opportunity as people flood into law schools."

    I think the class reductions may also be the result of some denial on the part of law school establishments. They think that if they take a one year hit to revenue through decreased enrollments, they will maintain their USNWR ranking and will be poised to make up those losses a year or two when the economy is better and applications rebound. I'm not sure this is wise given that a rebounding economy generally means less applicants to graduate schools. We'll see how they respond next year if current trends continue. They may just take the USNWR median hits rather than risk a faculty revolt at further budget cuts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree this is likely. A few schools just decided to throw in the towel this year, such as for example American which dropped its median LSAT score by three points (from about the 86th to the 77th percentile).

      Delete
    2. Given that, I think the next steps are to continue to push price-sensitivity and dropping out if you don't make a certain % (the poker analogy you used in your book is apt). Tell law students to set a number and be prepared to walk away if they don't get it.

      Perhaps showing applicants how law schools value students with only slightly higher numbers at multiples of $10,000 over them would be using special snowflake syndrome for good. This would encourage them to hold off and negotiate for a better price that reflects their true "value". I know from experience that scholarship amounts are one thing that law students tend to compete on.

      There also may be more dropping out activity this year, although law schools may try to counter by suggesting that lower class sizes will lead to a deeper % of hiring into the class.

      Either way, it should be an interesting cycle.

      Delete
  11. I agree, the law schools will not reform themselves. I would love to see the federal government institute reform (e.g. make SL debt bankruptable under certain conditions, put an appropriate cap on the amount that can be borrowed) but Im not optimistic about that either. Too many people in bed with each other, and any attempt at such reform will be met with screaming about "access" and "equal opportunity."

    So the word is getting out there. Good.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think we are going to see a growing number of people go for the government/PI jobs that will discharge all of their student loan debt. Think about it. People will be borrowing 300k for law school which is really more like 400K+ by the time they pay it off. To discharge all of that is huge.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "growing number... ...government/PI jobs".

      Sorry, next window. These jobs are filled.

      Which window? That one, over there - the one that says "Solo Jobs".

      Have a nice day!

      Delete
    2. I said a growing number a people would go for government jobs. I didn't say there would be a growing number of government jobs.

      Delete
    3. Which is kind of my point. How can someone "go for a government job" if there is no job for them to go for?

      Delete
    4. Semantics, both of you. Everyone HAS already been going for these jobs. And yes, there will be even more applicants for an even smaller available pool of these jobs.

      Delete
    5. Sorry, window's closed.

      Can't hear you.

      Nana-nana-boo-boo.

      ThhhhhhhbbbbbbbbbppppppTTT!**

      ;-)


      ** H/t Bill Watterson.

      Delete
    6. The other day a guy posted on TLS wondering if he and his wife should go to biglaw jobs in Chicago or NYC. He is afraid that NYC is too expensive. Together they owe $400,000 in non-dischargeable student loans.

      They might each have biglaw but they have no idea how hard repaying that money is going to be. I think the payment is like $5,000 a month? Even on two salaries and sharing costs, I wouldn't want to face that number. They are one layoff away from real disaster.

      I know that is off topic but when people mention $400,000 as a number, there are people out there now that owe that much.

      Delete
    7. The number of people willing to go for government jobs because of loan repayment might partially account for the ability of government to attract many applicants for unpaid fellowships. If those people can get in, they are well on the way to discharging their debt so it might actually make sense to work for free.

      Delete
    8. Just think of the folly of extending $400k, or even $200k or $100k, in unsecured debt to a person with no assets to speak of and no realistic prospects of income sufficient to support that debt.

      If the answer is that the debt is not unsecured (being guaranteed by the federal government), then I say that the federal government is the real lender.

      Delete
  13. Um, exactly where are these government jobs that discharge ALL student loan debt?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://www.finaid.org/loans/publicservice.phtml

      Delete
    2. Wrong. If you had read closely, you would note that the borrower must make 10 YEARS of payments before the loans are forgiven. Therefore, it is not a discharge of your entire loan (i.e., ALL your student loan debt).

      Christ, no wonder why you can't get a job as a lawyer. Those little details are a killer.

      Delete
    3. You also have to remain in the same public service job for the 120 months.

      Ugh.

      Delete
    4. "If you had read closely, you would note that the borrower must make 10 YEARS of payments before the loans are forgiven. Therefore, it is not a discharge of your entire loan (i.e., ALL your student loan debt)."

      You do realize the monthly payments during those 10 years are often less than interest only, right?

      Delete
  14. Work as a GS-5 in some kind of custodial position?

    ReplyDelete
  15. What a timely post. My TTT just sent out a letter to alumni about the decline in law school applications, with a "positive" spin on it. Here is a summary of what the letter said:
    "...Responding to a nationwide decline in law school applications, we reduced our class size but kept the diversity and quality of our incoming class high... But what is most impressive about these students is that they chose to pursue a J.D. and come to Mxtxxxxx despite the negative publicity that the legal profession and legal education have received lately. These students believe in themselves, and they believe in Mxtxxxxx's brand of practical legal education."

    Yep, I believed in myself, too, before law school left me six figures in debt, severely underemployed, and wondering what the heck I'm supposed to do with my life now that law isn't an option. Burn, TTT, burn.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "But what is most impressive about these students is that they chose to pursue a J.D. and come to Mxtxxxxx despite the negative publicity that the legal profession and legal education have received lately."

      What that shithole law school is really saying is, "Thank God our incoming students were stupid enough to think they are all special snowflakes and deserve success."

      That is completely revolting.

      Delete
  16. Declining enrollments and increased discounting equals declining revenue. Declining revenue and high fixed costs equals budgets that don't balance. Unbalanced budgets equals unhappy university administrators and trustees. Unhappy administrators and trustees can be bought off with excuses (bad economy, bad PR, it will turn around soon) for a while but not for long. They are playing this game for real money.

    Also, these folks tend to be rather proud of their institution's good name. It will not have escaped them that judges in multiple jurisdictions have ruled that you cannot sue a law school for lying to you because law schools administrators are such obvious and notorious liars that no sensible person would believe them if they said their mothers loved them.

    Law Prof: When do you think the university administrations will start demanding real changes?

    RPL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When the envelopes coming over from the law schools start getting light, which ought to be about . . . now.

      Delete
    2. LP, you should help pad Boulder's envelope with the enormous profits you'll be making from your book.

      Delete
  17. Now we have numbers behind the reasons for the panels about spinning your brand discussed yesterday.

    I have seen that Washington and Lee is up because they way over admitted students with decent scholarships.

    As for Americam, they still have way too many people. I remember with regret the girl on TLS who defied all advice not to go and to retake because she couldn't find a job in her major of international relations.

    But I hope this is just the beginning of the decline in enrollments.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Note too that big law firms like Winston and Strawn no-offered a decent percentage of their class.

    Yesterday above the law had a piece from a survey that said few big law firms are deferring people anymore. But almost all big law firms are still at 50% or less of their pre-ITE class.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The legal academy is crumbling. The biglaw model is falling apart. Technology and other market forces are rendering this "profession" obsolete. The perfect storm.

      Delete
    2. Talked to a kid that was deferred at Winston during the summer just after his (2010) graduation. They bumped him to October, then Jan.2011, then May 2011, and finally brought him on in (IIRC) late Aug2011.

      Meanwhile, he did get a small stipend (2500/month) and was permitted to do legal work, if he could find it, in a field other than what WS hired him for (which was IP).

      So he spent a year making Panini's and working for free in the local PD's office, worrying all the while that the deferment would turn into an outright withdrawal of the offer.

      Delete
    3. A lot of people found other things to do.

      Delete
  19. Too many lawyers, too many law schools and still too many takers...but progress is slowly occurring.

    ReplyDelete
  20. This is just the beginning you asshole fucker law professor trolls. The job situation is going to be worse each and every year to follow. This will continue until your heads are finally on the chopping block. I will be so happy!

    ReplyDelete
  21. A decline in law school class size has a 3 year trickle down effect.

    The law schools are still receiving tuitions from the largers classes of 2010 (3Ls) and 2011 (2Ls) versus the smaller class of 2012 (1Ls).

    So if the class size declines persist (or get steeper) for an additional two years, the full financial impact will crush the current financial structure of most law schools.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Meanwhile many of the asshole fucker law professors are thinking "sheesh, good thing Congress never investigated us, I guess we're safe with just a few more ABA stat requirements. LOL that reform movement was such a joke!"

      They. Are. So. Fucked.

      Delete
    2. Yes, but the law schools are all still hiring like it's 1999.

      Delete
  22. None of you got scammed. You are all losers. Pay your fully-legitimate debt. There are oil jobs in North Dakota, you're all just too entitled to work there. Quit crying. This blog is futile. Etc.

    There, I'll beat all the trolls to the chase and bang the "Law School Scam Denial" drum for today, so they don't have to.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Also, learn computer programming. And plumbing. And don't forget to take the police exam!

      Delete
    2. Don't forget the truck driving! I hear they're hiring in North Dakota!

      Delete
    3. Oh dear, here is the guy judging us all as if we are the same again. It is so sad that he is so angry. Maybe he is just stupid too, I have considered that. No offense, guy, I just don't get why you can't learn.

      Guy, try to realize that those of us looking to start our biglaw jobs in a few weeks after graduating from Columbia read this blog and post here too.

      It isn't just Nando and JD Painterguy and other victims of the lies law schools told that post here.

      Delete
    4. Ah. Good joke. Out troll the trolls and much more succintly.

      Delete
  23. Anybody have any stats from my alma mater, UIUC? They deserve to take a huge hit after their shameful shenanigans of reporting MADE-UP LSATs and UGPAs for several years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So you're one of the "little bastards" that Paul Pless trapped?

      Delete
    2. No, I went there in the eighties.

      Delete
  24. How is it that you (Paul) draw the conclusion by the decreased class sizes that "word is out," like it is because the law schools didn't get enough applications to fill the seats?

    Why not give some credit to the law schools who didn't just reach lower down in the barrel to maintain class sizes? After all, I'm 100% sure that every law school received enough applications to ensure no drop in applications.

    So maybe the administrators at the law schools whose numbers went down actually DO care a little bit?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, the schools do not want to jeopardize their US News & World Report rankings by lowering the median LSAT score of new students. That is the sole motivation for decreasing the entering class size.

      Delete
    2. "How is it that you (Paul) draw the conclusion by the decreased class sizes that "word is out," like it is because the law schools didn't get enough applications to fill the seats?"


      Orin, nice of you to join us. But I think it looks like you've already answered your own question.

      Clearly the "word is out" to the extent that the law schools (as you note) were not able to fill all seats and at the same time maintain parity applicant quality.

      Delete
    3. Exactly. I'm certain there will always be plenty of idiots applying to law school. In fact I'm sure that we're not too far off from law schools offering free applications to homeless people to maintain their applicant pools. But how much can law schools reduce their class sizes in order to maintain USNWR stats, or alternatively reduce their USNWR stats in order to maintain revenue, before those in control start asking serious questions?

      Delete
    4. If you are in fact Orin, know that I hope the POS law school you work for goes soon. Fuck all of the assholes running that presTTTigious institution.

      Delete
    5. No adminstrators care more about rankings than they care about money. Hard to believe I know. No one wants to be the Dean when the school drops like a stone in the rankings because the LSAT median dropped dramatically.

      Schools that do accept these students and lower their median are going to lose their reputation. That reputation can probably never be rebuilt.

      This is why Illinois and Michigan were so keen to game the rankings by admitting high GPA seniors from their undergrad schools so they didn't have to include their LSAT score.

      Of course that was just the tip of the iceberg of the corruption and lies that was happening with the numbers at Illinois.

      Delete
  25. "...not too far off from law schools offering free applications to homeless people to maintain their applicant pools."

    Only if they've taken the GMAT, GRE, or GED.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Will they accept my 6th grade Iowa Test of Basic Skills scores? I did really well on that test!

      Delete
    2. I was 3rd in English in Ohio when I was in high school. Does that count? :)

      Delete
  26. I've trolled this blog a few times so now I'll anti-troll. Seeing that some of these reject law schools have decreased enrollment by 20-30 percent and this is like the king of the scamblogs, LawProf has had in a part in preventing a lot (thousands) of people becoming miserable failures and also in balancing the legal job market.

    So to those who complain that he's abusing his tenure: this is much more useful than what most law professors do, especially at the low-level law schools where they seem to produce questionable scholarship and churn out ambulance chasers and unemployed people.

    But you do have to credit the law schools for not lowering their standards that much. A lot of people thought they'd scrape the bottom of the barrel of the applicant pool to preserve their money train and they very clearly didn't.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They do this because they sort of have to. If one T50ish school decided to scrape the bottom of the barrel but the others don't, they'd plunge into TTT status fairly quickly. The harm of that far outweighs the hit in revenue by admitting a couple dozen less people.

      Delete
    2. They'll just admit fewer students and keep jacking up the price.

      Delete
    3. $100,000 a year for Law School at a T2?

      I can see it happening.

      Delete
  27. While I still hope he loses his job, Kerr deserves a small amount of credit for being the only professor at Volokh to give a SHIT about student debt and joblessness. I was a long time reader of that blog, dating back to my own days as a law student. Their utter lack of interest in this has been a huge disappointment.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I think Prof. Kerr has posted here under his name several times. He does not seem the kind to be anonymous.

    ReplyDelete
  29. If you end up in the bottom half of a T2, 3, or 4 school after 1L - and thousands find themselves in this category every year - unless your daddy is the Attorney General or Uncle Jimmy is keeping a chair warm for you at his law firm, you are screwed! I don’t mean maybe screwed. I don’t mean probably screwed. I mean to a mathematical certainty - screwed. And yet, of the thousands who find themselves in this black hole every year, most will choose to play out their losing hands until the bitter end known as graduation two years later. Its great to see these declining enrollment numbers. And lets hope they continue to plummet. One other thing I would like to see is large numbers of unsuccessful 1L’s cut their losses and drop out of law school. The system is rigged. It’s a hard curve. Half of you will be in the bottom half every time. And no employer will touch you with a ten foot pole. But you don’t have to play that game. Drop out! And take your tuition dollars with you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. why do I have to keep reminding you that women have money and connections too. Are you some boomer who doesn't realize that women have made great strides since you were in school?

      Delete
  30. Hey, check out this gem:

    Attorneys exclusively with document review experience will not be considered for this project.

    http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/doc/lgl/3286782599.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not really surprising since I'm sure they have plenty of people with actual litigation experience applying.

      Delete
    2. That will reduce applications by 90%.

      Delete
    3. Premier litigation firm, $30 per hour?

      Delete
    4. Yes. Premier litigation firm can find plenty of people at $30 an hour. What's your question? They should pay more? Why, when they get what they need for that price?

      Delete
    5. Can it find "premier" people at $30 an hour?

      Delete
  31. wow, it pays $30 per hour too!

    ReplyDelete
  32. Hello LawProf:

    Thank you for this blog. You've warned a fair number of people, including myself, about the debt hazards of law school. You confirmed what I already strongly suspected, so thank you.

    Here's my situation: I'm in my early 40s, working in an industry that's becoming outdated and redundant, and looking for a new profession. I was not a strong academic performer in high school and college. Due to a longtime interest in politics and some recent citizen activism, I have a strong interest in the law, especially consumer and business law. I am a skilled researcher, editor and writer, but not very good at negotiation or public speaking.

    What would you or your readers recommend for someone with my interests who has ruled out becoming an attorney? Perhaps work as a paralegal or legal secretary? Any other options?

    Thank you again for your time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Assuming you're a female, starting as a legal secretary/admin is not a bad way to learn about things around the edges. I don't know how it is everywhere, by my firm will pay for admins to take paralegal cert classes if they have the desire and aptitude. I'm assuming you're female, by the way. There's a fair bit of bias against male legal administrative personnel.

      There are also paralegal cert programs and (e.g.) associates degree programs, but if you could get someone else to pay for it (as above), that's always a better option.

      Other than that, what is your original degree? And what (now shrinking) field is it that you work? These things would help people make recommendations.

      By the way, you don't necessarily have to give up on law school. Have you played around with the LSAT yet? If for some reason that test just resonates with you and you rip off a score of, for example, 174+, you could find yourself going to a good regional school with little or no debt despite so-so undergrad grades (assuming "not a strong performer" does not mean "spent 4 years on academic probation").

      Delete
    2. Hello Anonymous: Thank you for your reply. I did not complete my undergraduate degree; my major was English. I have been working in the publishing industry for the past decade.

      Delete
    3. Let go of your ambition to become an attorney.

      Delete
  33. You like apples? Well, howsabout THEM apples?September 21, 2012 at 1:07 PM

    12:27 writes, "It’s a hard curve. Half of you will be in the bottom half every time. "

    I don't think this is fair. Law school students are very bright and work very, very hard.

    I think the law schools should re-do their curves so that not more than 25 percent of the students end up in the bottom half of the class.

    My two cents.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. " . . . so that not more than 25 percent of the students end up in the bottom half of the class. "

      What?

      Delete
  34. I'm a Rutgers-Newark grad myself, Class of 05, and presently (by my lights, at least) underemployed in the legal profession. I'm in fairly frequent contact with a few of my former professors, one of whom remarked that the drop in applicants has been most accutely felt not in smaller overall class size (this is just a hunch, but R-N's 1L class has probably not expanded significantly since the mid-Aughts, but I'd welcome somebody else debunking this as myth) but in the gender breakdown of the incoming class. For the first time in decades, apparently, males outnumber females in the 1L class.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Evidence that women are smarter than men?

      Delete
    2. ^
      A single entering class is not representative. Application volume (before LSAC locked it) showed that males showed a larger decline (percentage wise) than females.

      Delete
  35. 1:44 - I think Mr. Apples was being sarcastic. The larger point is that nobody heads off to law school thinking that they will end up in the bottom half - and half of the are wrong, every time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was hoping and praying that the Apples guy was a troll. I was going to start using that with my non-lawyer colleagues to make fun of the terrible math skills stereotypical of lawyers.

      Delete
    2. I think it needs to be said that the whole "bottom" half thing needs to die.

      It shouldn't matter if you are smart, hardworking, and make a good attorney.

      For that to happen close to 100 law schools need to close though.

      Delete
    3. Why do you think this? The below median kids at most schools aren't getting jobs.

      Delete
    4. They are at my aristocratic school. While some people at the top of the class are not getting interviews.

      Delete
  36. A professor who just recently received tenure—and already wishes that he were elsewhere—told me a few days ago that I'd make a great law professor. Well, that may be, but the legal academy is in decline, and I would not expect to find an academic position a few years from now. He nodded and agreed that it's a horrible time for aspiring jurists.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Just now I ran a search on Google for "law schools close down". One of the searches at the bottom of the screen—one that evidently had come up many times before—was "law schools near beach".

    Imagine the idiots whose primary criterion for choosing a law school is its proximity to a fucking beach.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Any law schools increasing enrolment?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Washington and Lee did
      From law profs list it looks like suny buffalo did

      Delete
  39. Law school is still a dangerous undertaking for anyone whose mommy or daddy won't pay for it. The decline in applications will entice applicants to go for schools that as recently as two years ago were out of reach. Someone who would have settled for a Minnesota with a modest scholarship will now scrape into a Cornell with no scholarship. This person will borrow heavily for the greater prestige but most likely will end up in the bottom half of the class and will have trouble finding work sufficiently well paid to support her student loans. If she insists on going to law school, she may be wiser to go back to her Minnesota and wring a greater discount out of it.

    ReplyDelete
  40. just wait till the bond rating agencies get a load of this. Best number of enrollees for most of those schools is zero. And if the schools, not connected to a larger organization, have declining enrollment and deeper discounts, they won't be able to service their debt at a rate that allows them to stay solvent.

    Going to zero.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Maybe I missed it, but where were these law school numbers drawn from exactly? School websites? NALP? ABA?

    ReplyDelete
  42. And then there's this:
    http://www.thenortherner.com/news/2012/10/04/chase-admission-standards-questioned/

    ReplyDelete

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